Tải bản đầy đủ

International environmental law policy

International Environmental Policy

Environmental Policy
Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto Process

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Reader of Environmental Politics, Department of Geography,
Hull University, UK

Aynsley Kellow
Professor, and Head of the School of Government,
University of Tasmania, Australia

Edward Elgar
Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

© Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Aynsley Kellow 2002
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.
Published by
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
Glensanda House
Montpellier Parade
Glos GL50 1UA
Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
136 West Street
Suite 202
Massachusetts 01060
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja.
International environmental policy : interests and the failure of the Kyoto process /
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Aynsley Kellow.
p. cm.
Includes index.
1. Environmental policy––International cooperation. 2. Environmental risk
assessment––International cooperation. 3. Greenhouse gases––Government
policy––International cooperation. 4. Air––Pollution––Government policy––
International cooperation. 5. Global warming––Economic aspects. I. Kellow,
Aynsley J. (Aynsley John), 1951– II. Title.
GE170 .B64 2002
ISBN 1 84064 818 X
Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall

List of abbreviations


1 Introduction
2 The international environmental policy process:
increasing complexity and implementation failure
3 Energy interests, opportunities and uneven burden-sharing
4 The Kyoto process
5 The failure of principled discourse
6 Institutionalizing scientific advice: designing consensus as a
policy driver?
7 The suppression of scientific controversy
8 Baptists, bootleggers and the Kyoto process




Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate
Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases
Activities Implemented Jointly
Energy working group of Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft
Alliance of Small Island States
Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum
Business as usual
British Nuclear Fuels Limited
Climate Action Network
Combined cycle gas turbine
Clean Development Mechanism
UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 1972
Carbon dioxide
Conference of the Parties
Committee of the Whole
Centre for Science and Environment (India)
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (Australia)
Economic and Social Council of the United Nations
Economies in transition
Environmental non-governmental organization
Environmental Protection Agency (USA)
Economic and Social Research Council
European Union
Food and Agriculture Organization (UN)
First Assessment Report
Framework Convention on Climate Change
Flue gas desulphurization
Friends of the Earth
Group of seventy-seven ‘non-aligned’ nations
Global Atmospheric Research Programme
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

List of abbreviations



General circulation model
Global Environmental Change (Programme, UK)
Global Environment Fund
Greenhouse gas
Global warming potential
Hydro-electric power
International Atomic Energy Agency
International Council of Scientific Unions
International Energy Agency
International Geosphere Biosphere Project
Integrated gasification and combined cycle gas turbine
Intergovernmental organization
International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis
International Meteorological Institute
Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Joint Implementation
Japan, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand group of
JUSSCANNZ Japan, USA, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Norway and New
Zealand group of countries
Less developed countries
Little Ace Age
Geneva Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air
Pollution 1979
Land use, land use changes and forestry
Convention for the Prevention of Dumping by Ships 1973
Medieval climate optimum
Multilateral environmental agreement; monoethanolamine
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
North American Free Trade Agreement
National Assessment Synthesis (USA)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (USA)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (USA)
Non-governmental organization
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
Quantified emission limitation and reduction objective
Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (ICSU)
Second Assessment Report



List of abbreviations

Social Democratic Party (Germany)
sulphur hexa-fluoride
Summary for Policy-makers
Third Assessment Report
UN Conference on Environment and Development
UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 1972
United Nations Environment Programme
World Energy Conference
Working Groups I, II, III (IPCC)
World Meteorological Organization
World Resources Institute
World Trade Organization
Worldwide Fund for Nature

It is one of the distinguishing features of the scientific debate over climate
change that those who contest the prevailing orthodoxy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often called ‘sceptics’, and this is
meant to be a pejorative term. Scepticism, however, has long been central to the
scientific endeavour.
We have written this book out of a commitment to scepticism. We are
sceptical for two reasons: after decades of observing environmental policy and
politics, we are convinced that effective policy cannot be made against the
interests of nations and people, especially businesses and employees – ironically,
interests least represented when multilateral environmental agreements are
negotiated, but all too apparent at the level of the nation-state. Second, we
question the claim that international environmental treaties can be based on
‘consensus’ science as long as fundamental research questions remain
unresolved, which may be for a very long time. When knowledge remains fundamentally incomplete, precautionary policy in particular will tend to drive
policy towards the interests of short-term winners, ultimately enhancing global
conflict unless there is genuine sharing. Consensus policy is one thing, but an
‘underpinning’ consensus among selected scientists and sciences funded by
policy-makers is quite another. In arguing that science remains too uncertain
and interests too diverse to justify the Kyoto Protocol as envisaged by its
advocates, we have adopted an unpopular stand against a large amount of
scientific, social scientific and legal literature, which will certainly not be
welcomed by environmentalists. We still consider ourselves as supporters of
environmental protection, but as politically unlikely to be achieved by use of
‘green’ rhetoric and selectivity. The green ‘movement’, if it wants to remain
effective, needs to become politically more sophisticated.
In taking our stand we have been helped by many people in research and
government, only some of whom we can mention. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
owes much to all the IPCC scientists she was able to interview and observe
during the early 1990s, including Sir John Houghton and Robert Watson. She
has acted as a reviewer for its Working Group III, the experts with the solutions,
since the mid 1990s. On the sceptical science side, she learnt from the astroand space physics communities to which her late husband Dr Peter James Christiansen belonged, and more recently benefited from discussions with critical



Russian environmental scientists, especially Professor Kirill Ya Kondratyev. As
editor of Energy & Environment, she has published many of the critical voices,
not because she knows them to be right or highly ‘acclaimed’ by their peers,
but because she felt that official journals in Europe in particular were ignoring
critics. Our confidence in scientific scepticism is maintained not only by
personal belief but also by contact with an informal global e-mail network that
included a few IPCC authors and supporters and a self-selected group of
sceptics, including well known IPCC critics such as Fred Singer, John Daly,
Richard Courtney and Nigel Calder, as well as a number of German, Scandinavian and Australian scientists from several disciplines. Few have changed
sides; the debate continues with little financial help for sceptics and their fundamental objections to ‘climate prediction’ by simple mathematical
computations. However, no single hypothesis to counter the IPCC ‘consensus’
has so far emerged, nor is it being funded.
The seeds of doubt about climate models as policy tools were sowed early
in our minds, but sprouted well while living with research communities that
included not only fusion and plasma physics but, increasingly and more directly,
the social and natural sciences. Sonja benefited from two UK Economic and
Social Research Council (ESRC) grants which allowed her to study the IPPC
during its early years, and then observe how the climate threat was picked up
for aid and trade purposes by international financial institutions. The
Leverhulme Trust helped to fund a visit to Australia in 1998, and the Mawson
Centre of the Geography Department (University of Adelaide) is thanked deeply
for providing a friendly base for the study of Australia’s climate policy. The
Lavoisier Group of the Australian Parliament is thanked for funding her travel
to and in Australia in 2000 to discuss climate policy with policy-makers and
stakeholders. Aynsley Kellow wishes to thank Stuart Harris for inviting him
(on behalf of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia) to present a paper
to a Joint Academies Forum on Climate Change in 1997, and thus draw out his
interest in climate change. David Robertson and Alan Oxley subsequently
extended similar invitations. Meg McDonald and Howard Bamsey, both former
Ambassadors for the Environment in Australia, provided valuable insights into
the Kyoto process. Aynsley also learned much about the impact of climate
change policy while acting as a consultant to Sinclair Knight Merz on
compliance with Kyoto. In the end, however, taxpayers must be thanked most.
It is primarily in their interest that this book is written.
Observing the behaviour of the UK government and the European Union
(EU) on climate policy has remained a major research interest since the late
1980s. In this context Sonja would also like to thank Gavin Watson, once closely
involved in European environmental policy-making, for valuable insights. Few
‘outsiders’ realize how effectively a small, dedicated number of unelected civil
servants and their scientists ‘on tap’ are able translate their common visions



and interests into a policy option ‘sold’ as ethical-scientific imperative. At least
in the UK during the 1990s, funding ‘the environment’ became increasingly
controlled by public servants seeking, apparently, policy-relevant knowledge
and de facto diverting the academic community from studying other problems.
Scientists working for governments institutions would often talk only in
confidence, itself an indication that climate change debates were being (self-)
censored for political reasons. Many thanks must therefore go to many unnamed
colleagues and friends in several countries who have discussed ‘climate change’
research and policy with us. Many keep their doubts strategically to themselves;
even more are by now believers.

1. Introduction
The prospect of rapid climate change has generated many possible global
responses. Such responses might entail attempts to adapt to the effects of climate
change. Or they might entail actions which will minimize climate change,
provided of course that this is anthropogenic in origin, and thus susceptible to
human control.
Since the mid-1980s efforts have been made to mitigate or combat global
warming by reducing the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs), particularly
carbon dioxide (CO2) generated by the combustion of fossil fuels, in particular
coal and oil. The international legal context for these efforts is provided by the
Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC, 1992) and its Kyoto
Protocol (KP, 1997). Negotiations, after stalling in late 2000, have finally
succeeded, at least partially, with the ‘mini-Kyoto’ protocol agreed (without
the USA) in Bonn in July 2001 and later that year in November in Marrakesh.
An intergovernmental agreement to go forward has indeed been reached, but
in much watered-down form and with many important decisions again deferred.
The refusal of the political leaders of the USA, the largest emitter of GHGs, to
join is seen in America as a principled stand against UN dominated globalization and has been justified with reference to economic unfairness and scientific
uncertainty. In contrast, the European Union and the United Kingdom have
been whole-hearted supporters of the Kyoto process which is supported by a
‘scientific consensus’. What is going on scientifically and politically? Why has
the Kyoto Protocol, designed ostensibly to prevent dangerous anthropogenic
planetary heating, been embraced by so many governments, industrialists,
scientists and environmentalists in Europe and even, more cautiously, by governments in most developing countries – while being rejected by the USA and
regarded with caution by other countries such as Japan, Canada and Australia?
For climate change, states formed into negotiating blocs and agreed in Kyoto
to a number of differentiated reduction targets for industrialized nations which
amounted to a 5.2 per cent reduction over 1990 emission levels of greenhouse
gases. But many details were left to be finalized, and in subsequent rounds of
negotiation the collective 5.2 per cent cut was reduced to an effective reduction
in emissions of about 2 per cent at the sixth meeting of the Conference of the
Parties to the FCCC (COP-6), which broke down without agreement in The
Hague in late 2000 but was concluded eight months later in July 2001 in Bonn.


International environmental policy

Both mitigation, which has dominated the debate so far, and adaptation,
which is now creeping into it, raise issues which are central to politics, in part
because anthropogenic (or human-induced) climate change, if serious as well
as real, raises questions about the distribution of liability, of costs and benefits,
and hence of global competitiveness and political stability. Even adaptation
responses raise questions about who should research solutions and who should
pay for them. Questions just as difficult arise if naturally occurring climate
change were to take place at a rate which makes gradual adaptation – that is
change without drastic intervention – difficult or prohibitively costly. We live
in an interdependent world and therefore should aid neighbours who are unable
to cope when catastrophe befalls them. But if such disasters have human origins,
then the claim by the victims on those who cause the problems is stronger.
Attribution of causality is therefore the essence of any attempt to impose legally
binding obligations.
But, although devising and implementing policies and determining the
allocation, first, of blame and then, in particular, of costs, are all fundamental
political activities usually undertaken through the agency of government,
government is absent at the global level. Here, governance without a single
government is required (see Rosenau, 1995). How then should courses of action
be devised and chosen, and costs and benefits be allocated: for example, in the
case allegedly as ‘global’ and ‘dangerous’ as global warming? International
relations theory suggests some insights, stressing the value of shared norms and
understandings of science, of cause and effect, to help bring disparate parties
together. Yet, as we will show, strong normative and causal discourses were
insufficient with Kyoto, which came down to a negotiation of interests. In order
to get a deal that had some prospect of Kyoto receiving sufficient ratifications
to enter into force, the EU and G-77 and China had to concede so much ground
to Russia, Japan, Canada and Australia that the gross reductions in CO2
emissions required were close to zero, with sinks and trading of ‘hot air’ resulting
from Russia’s post-communist economic collapse serving to meet targets.
In the absence of government as a single sovereign actor, global governance
cannot rely upon the imposition of coercion which is fundamental to
government at the level of the nation-state, although some nations are subject
to coercion by others. The international system cannot readily even rely upon
majority voting – even by substantial majorities – since those not in agreement
are sovereign states. Faced with the classic options of ‘exit, voice or loyalty’
(Hirschman, 1970), states might simply choose to exit from the deliberative
process by which a scheme of governance is to be devised. Should one nation
choose exit over voicing disagreement or adhering to the dominant view, the
whole scheme is threatened. This is especially so if the party departing is a significant player, but any departure risks being copied by others.



Regardless of whether international treaties make provision for voting, actual
voting is the exception: one which is actively avoided. The threat to call a vote
becomes in itself an important bargaining device, used not just by those who
might win the vote, but also as a disruptive threat by the likely losers, because
voting is likely to shatter the consensus which lies at the heart of international
agreements, including those on environmental problems, usually referred to as
multilateral environmental agreements (or MEAs). Consensus is difficult to
achieve, especially among the over 180 diverse members of the United Nations.
For this reason, the negotiation processes have been described as analogous to
a convoy of ships, which can move only at the speed of the slowest boat (Sand,
1990). Not only is the speed of the negotiation process limited in this way to
ensure that all parties are ‘brought along’ together, but there is a qualitative
corollary to the ‘slowest boat problem’: what can be agreed often reflects the
‘lowest common denominator’. The negotiations themselves put a premium on
certainty (about damage and costs) and the reduction of complex issues to
simple visions, thus creating a difficult environment for scientific advice to
flourish, but encouraging verbal ambiguity and legal flexibility.
The challenge in developing responses to climate change and other global
environmental problems is thus one involving pace of progress, quality of
outcomes and coping with uncertainty: of achieving a degree of cohesion among
disparate actors which will produce worthwhile agreements on a reasonable
timetable. The challenge is often described in terms of interdependency norms
prevailing over sovereignty norms: the realization by states’ parties to negotiations that, for whatever reason, it is more important that they cooperate than
defend their independence and the interests of those within their borders. But
will this strategy work when it remains uncertain whether the resulting
agreement has any real effect on the environment? The outcome must remain
problematic as, especially if practical implementation takes place over time
spans that may be very long indeed, human behaviour and technologies are by
no means fully under the control of even the most powerful government. Many
governments may also lack the capacity for implementation.
Brenton (1994, 252–9) identifies four forces encouraging international
cohesion in international environmental politics: the use of ‘toe in the door’
negotiating processes; reliance upon science and epistemic communities; the
influence of environment non-governmental organizations (NGOs); and what
he terms ‘environmental altruism’, or responding to rhetorical justifications
which are difficult to resist. Brenton extends Lumsdaine’s (1993) insights about
the force of moral suasion in the aid arena to suggest that governments may
find it difficult to resist rhetorical injunctions to ‘save the planet’. The rhetoric
alone ‘tends to make politicians and negotiators readier to look for common
ground than they would be in other sorts of international negotiation.’ (Brenton,
1994, 259). Brenton admits to having had personal feelings of this kind in


International environmental policy

climate change negotiations, and similar feelings were reported by the chief
US negotiator on the ozone issue (Benedick, 1991). But moral injunctions that
are difficult to resist are not necessarily a sound foundation upon which to base
an international regulatory regime. Certainly, Nadelmann (1990) suggests that
prohibition regimes are more successful when they reflect, rather than impose,
strong moral positions, and it seems reasonable to suppose the same applies
with any strong regulatory regime.
‘Toe in the door’ negotiating processes are not unique to international environmental politics, and are indeed an example of a fundamental political strategy
of the ‘thin end of the wedge’ – of achieving acceptance of a small, innocuous
measure and then expanding it. It forms the basis of Lindblom’s (1959, 1979)
claim that incremental change can produce rapid progress by dealing with
political realities and of Wildavsky’s (1984) similar notion in the politics of
the budgetary process. In the international context this has been referred to as
‘iterative functionalism’ (Feldman, 1995), and has been formalized in the model
of the development of ‘framework’ conventions, such as the FCCC. These have
little binding content but establish an institutional setting that facilitates the
development of shared norms and understandings which later make possible
the development of more explicit binding commitments under a protocol to the
framework convention. This has been the case with regimes dealing with
problems such as acid rain or ozone depletion.
The nature of the negotiating process is thus the adoption of initial agreements
whose substantive content is low, but which gave rise to a subsequent series of
meetings which are used ‘as an opportunity by those countries with environmentally more advanced positions to place pressure on others, both directly
and via environmental NGOs, to shift in their direction’ (Brenton, 1994, 252).
This depends upon the globalization of the news and the uniquely open and
public style of international environmental negotiation developed at the 1972
UN Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm ‘which means that
NGOs and others can apply their pressure on the right issues at the right time’
(Brenton, 1994, 253).
Brenton (1994, 255) also notes that the use of science – sometimes distorted
for effect – is important; that and ‘the power of a united scientific view to push
even unwilling governments into action is now one of the key mechanisms of
international environmental cooperation’. Most notably, Peter Haas (1990) has
emphasized the importance of epistemic consensus evolving among communities of scientists in the development of a broader political consensus. The
emergence of a scientific consensus is seen by Peter Haas as a necessary rather
than a sufficient condition for international agreement, although Ernst Haas
(1990) is of the view that changing knowledge can lead to a redefinition of
interests. Once agreement has been reached and policy commitments have been
made, there is a need for science to support it, and this can add to the factors



which might have a corrupting influence on science, as the scientific consensus
can become a tool for securing additional research funding for scientists.
Boehmer-Christiansen (1994a, 1994b), however, has questioned the scientific
nature of such consensus if research science is under pressure to deliver in order
to justify a policy direction already defined by interests that may be considered
The absence of a scientific consensus is seen as more significant than
consensus, because scientific disagreements are regarded as likely to be
sufficient to limit the prospects for agreement. This in turn tends to lead to
pressure on science, or to the selection of ‘relevant’ or ‘sound’ science by governments seeking agreement; and the process whereby the Kyoto Protocol to
the Framework Convention on Climate Change was developed, we suggest
here, is an example of this.
The emergence of a scientific consensus was certainly important in the development of an international response to the problem of ozone-depleting chemicals.
From the publication of the first paper suggesting that CFCs might be responsible for depleting the ozone layer, it took little more than a decade for the
Montreal Protocol to be concluded, during which time further research had built
support for a particular understanding of the problem. The success of Montreal
encouraged an attempt to repeat the process for climate change. Mustafa Tolba,
Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
when the Montreal Protocol was being negotiated, stated that the mechanisms
designed for the protocol would be used as the blueprint for the development of
a response to the problem of climate change (Benedick, 1991, 7).

The equivalent international agreement developed in response to the threat of
climate change – the Kyoto Protocol – necessarily saw national interests figure
much more prominently during negotiations than had been the case at Montreal,
with science proving much less effective in producing consensus. With climate
change, the proposed emission reductions have far more serious and pervasive
and unpredictable effects on energy supplies and fuel competition than substitution for CFCs, which were produced only by a handful of companies eager
to retain advantage in the production of substitutes.
The original Kyoto decision had proven to be too advantageous to the EU,
and concessions had to be granted to others in the form of provision for sinks
and emissions trading to secure agreement, despite explicit attempts to use
science and strong normative arguments to bring non-European parties into
agreement. Meantime, in March 2001, the USA effectively exited the Protocol,


International environmental policy

rendering not just its effectiveness but its relevance to the climate change
issue problematic.
Does this suggest that we should discount the importance of epistemic
consensus as a factor in the development of political agreement? We shall suggest
in this book that we need not discount totally the views of Peter Haas (1990); on
the contrary, the pressure for consensus among scientists was great but could
not overcome the many issues of equity and practical implementation raised by
the proposed solutions. But, as we shall show, not only did interests feature more
prominently with climate change than with ozone depletion, but the science of
climate change itself (contra ozone) has been inescapably tied up with the play
of interests from the outset. Rather than a scientific consensus evolving gradually
as more and more research was conducted, as it did with ozone, institutional
means were developed to produce a scientific consensus in the expectation that
this would be decisive in producing a political consensus in favour of action on
climate change – and action of a particular kind at that. An international organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was
specifically established to generate a consensus that could be presented as being
‘scientific’. We shall discuss to what extent this label is merited.
With ozone, in other words, science was essentially an independent variable,
and the consensus it produced a dependent variable. With climate change, we
suggest, causality has been more confused simply because human understanding of climate, its natural variability and impacts remains limited and contested
among several disciplines. The epistemic community on climate change science
is self-selected and is dominated by a few governments with strong atmospheric-science/climatology research capacities and space lobbies: the United
States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Canada, Japan, Germany and Australia.
Most of these countries also have in their national interests a prominent
component of interests such as oil companies, whose gas holdings are made
more valuable by restrictions on coal (USA, UK, Canada). The nuclear
programmes and industries of some are similarly advantaged (USA, UK,
Canada, Sweden, Japan, Germany), and some had heavily subsidised coal
industries that they wished to close but needed political support to do so (UK,
Germany). The UK and Germany have been particularly advantaged by the
form of international commitments negotiated thus far. Climate change also
seemed to require action which reinforced policies aimed at providing both
energy security and taxation revenues. Australia is unusual in this company,
because (uranium exports aside) restrictions on the emission of greenhouse
gases represent considerable costs, and its scientific commitment has thus
conflicted with its national interests.
The scientific endeavour of climate research itself has thus resonated strongly
with significant national interests, but science itself has also been an interest.
The threat of anthropogenic climate change has led governments collectively



to spend billions of dollars on climate research, based largely on computer
modelling rather than empirical research, much of it redirected from studies
which might have had more immediate returns in predicting natural variability, such as droughts. This has created a ‘grant-dense’ environment for climate
change science, and especially meteorology, which was institutionalized domestically and internationally in a well-established intergovernmental organization
and quickly, if reluctantly at first, made this part of its global research agenda
funded by national governments. The geological and space sciences are still
attempting, with little success, to enter this field. Many dedicated research
centres for climate change modelling have been created and the ‘science politicians’ involved in both the allocation and securing of funds have set priorities
which can exert a powerful pull on research. Climate change policy became in
large part research policy.
We consider that this milieu has meant that the science of climate change is
no longer ‘pure’, but also reflects, rather than simply drives, politics. The need
for ‘relevance’ and the dependence of society on those who have an interest in
there being a problem has left decision-makers dangerously exposed to the possibility of Lysenkoism on a global scale: Soviet scientist Trofim Lysenko set
the science of genetics back years in the USSR by advancing the false theory
that improvements in things such as milk production could become acquired
characteristics which could be inherited by successive generations – a theory
which (though false) resonated loudly with Marxist–Leninist ideology.1
It is not that we consider all climate science to be on a par with Lysenko’s
genetics – far from it. Nor do we reject the possibility that anthropogenic GHG
emissions might have an impact on future climate. Rather, we are sceptical
about greenhouse science as it has been funded and used for policy purposes –
as we think everyone should be of all science. And we consider that climate
change science is riddled with interests to the extent that it has much less power
as a force for consensus than was the case, for example, with ozone, asbestos,
ionising radiation or even acidification of surface waters.
We shall argue that the attempt to construct a scientific consensus has
involved the science politicians in attempting to impose a political consensus
on states. This attempt itself has certain attributes that seem to require that the
science should be responded to in a particular way. The science politicians, in
other words, have sought to impose a particular problem definition and solution
on society. This, they seem to think, will trump the powerful interests that would
otherwise block action. The proposed solution is one which ‘demands’ emission
reduction rather than adaptation strategies, even though (should their own predictions prove correct) emission reduction is likely to be futile! This problem
definition closely tied to the solutions was particularly attractive politically
because some solutions were already available and had been proposed initially
not to reduce emissions from fossil fuel combustion, but to replace fossil fuels


International environmental policy

that had either become too expensive – the oil shocks of the 1970s – or were
allegedly threatened by rapid depletion, according to the ‘limits to growth’
discourse of the 1970s.
Any emission reduction measures likely to be politically possible may well
prove futile if CO2 has indeed a long residence period in the atmosphere – in
excess of 100 years (the contrarians say 20 or 30 years) – so that accumulated
CO2 already emitted together with that emitted over the next century will raise
levels in the atmosphere. The 5.2 per cent cut agreed to in Kyoto would (even
if achieved) quickly be wiped out by growth in emissions by developing
countries. The IPCC argues that a 60 per cent reduction in total global emissions
would be required to stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels. Given this assumption,
there is a fundamental flaw in the case that compels us to pursue vigorously
emission reductions: unless CO2 emissions are slashed by at least half, CO2
levels will continue to rise and (if the predictions of the scientists and energy
forecasters in the IPCC consensus are correct) climate change will inevitably
ensue. There is a strong argument, therefore, that dangerous change should be
slowed a little, but that adaptation and longer-term technological change are
surely more important priorities. Why then the enormous, if so far only very
partially successful, effort to reduce emissions undertaken at the global level?
If the IPCC scientific consensus proves correct, some adaptation to climate
change is inevitable. Hence a response strategy focused primarily on emission
reduction would seem to be flawed. The most important policy issue would
appear to be one of how to respond (in the face of uncertain science) to the possibility of climate variability – with a strong regional dimension – which might
be exacerbated by human activity. Climate is inherently variable and unpredictable; it has changed greatly over geological time scales and much apparent
unusual climate behaviour is merely created by omitting from the picture earlier
periods when change has been even faster than today, without any human
presence (Gorshkov and Gorshkov, 1998; Berner and Streif, 2001). Avoidance
of climate change is an impossibility. It is by no means clear that attempting to
prevent climate change is the best strategy, and an ability to provide economically the means to adapt to and absorb climate variability is central to any
response strategy. Many see emission reduction as likely to be driven more by
technological change, such as the development of more energy-efficient devices
such as fuel cells, than by policy, and particularly by policies which have high
costs that might limit our collective ability to meet the costs of adaptation.
These policies do, however, add another interest to an already complex circle
of international, national and subnational actors, namely bureaucratic agencies
that have been enabled to acquire information, count emissions, administer,
tax, and regulate activities giving rise to GHG emissions to an extent quite
unusual in an era of deregulation and privatization.



Yet the thrust of the international policy process remains weighted overwhelmingly towards reduction strategies. Why? We suggest that the reason lies
in an understanding of interests primarily related to energy which infuse both
the science of climate change and the moral arguments invoked to give the
science force. We suggest in this book that the Kyoto process has not been
successful because it is based upon an assumption that a scientific consensus
and strong moral injunctions will be sufficient to drive international policy. We
argue that the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol was a triumph for an interestbased explanation because of, rather than despite, the provision of science and
normative arguments which were employed. This was because both the science
and the normative arguments reflected the play of some powerful interests, and
were being employed to push the direction of the process not just towards
emission reduction rather than adaptation, but towards policy instruments which
favoured some national or economic interests at the expense of others.
Under these circumstances, science and normative arguments had less force
than suggested by many accounts of international environmental politics,
ironically because the international system has ‘learned’ that scientific
consensus tends to amount to a consensus negotiated between selected scientific
institutions dependent on official funding and eager to exclude competing disciplines, and that strong normative arguments can do only so much to drive
actors towards accepting ‘interdependency’ rather than ‘sovereignty’. Kyoto
also revealed that, at the end of the day, there is little policy which is solely
‘environmental’, as the issue had important implications for many other policy
areas, which brought in other interested actors. It is not so much that interests
were stronger than they were in the ozone case, and the scientific and moral
forces were thus insufficient, but that the scientific and moral interests exerting
themselves in favour of Kyoto reflected (to a much greater extent than with
ozone) the interests of those who would benefit from restrictions being placed
on selected emissions.
This conclusion, which we shall argue in detail, accords with other recent
studies of international environmental politics, where a more nuanced understanding of the place of science and norms is emerging. To give but one
example, according to Ronald B. Mitchell (employing discourse analysis),
through international treaties states redefine their rights in areas of common
jurisdiction and these redefinitions of rights then redefine sovereignty. But the
key question in an anarchic international system concerns whether – and under
what circumstances – de jure redefinitions of sovereignty alter the de facto
practices of sovereignty that harm the environment (always assuming that there
is general agreement on what is ‘harm’). Mitchell (1998, 275) suggests that:
‘The success of efforts to alter sovereign practice by redefining sovereign rights
depends, at least in part, on the form of discourse used to justify the redefinition.’ Drawing on the work of Goldstein and Keohane (1993) and Sikkink


International environmental policy

(1993), Mitchell distinguishes between ‘instrumental’ (or interest-based)
discourse, causal (or science-based) discourse, and ‘principled’ (or moralsbased) discourse.
Mitchell suggests that instrumental discourse will only result in reluctant
states accepting new norms of sovereignty if that discourse coincides with new
patterns of power and interests that would ‘force’ them to accept such norms
anyway. Available solutions each have their own champions in the form of
interests pushing not only for solutions which advantage them, but also for
problems which advantage their solutions – in the manner of Cohen et al.’s
(1972) notion of problems and solutions meeting in the ‘garbage can’, or
Winner’s (1977) notion of adapting ends to available means. Scientific (or
‘causal’) discourse will only prevail over short-term interests when sufficient
scientific consensus and acceptance of that consensus persuades decisionmakers to focus their attention on ‘how nature will respond to their actions
rather than on how other states will respond’ (Mitchell, 1998, 283). He also
warns, and we agree, that not only does moral (or ‘principled’) discourse often
fail to lead to the acceptance of new principled beliefs, but it is likely to be
counterproductive, leading states to reject new norms of sovereignty unless
more direct, material incentives encourage their acceptance.
Note that Mitchell focuses on a distinction between de jure redefinitions of
sovereignty and the de facto practices of sovereignty, which point to an
increasing focus on international policy-making rather than just international
politics – a focus (introduced from policy studies at the domestic level) on
implementation and outcomes, rather than on whether interdependency norms
prevail over sovereignty norms. Unlike ‘high politics’, the ‘low politics’
(Hoffman, 1966) of which international environmental regulation is so typical
requires that we move beyond politics to policy, and consider the terms of
‘global governance’ (Soroos, 1986). Scholars such as Hanf and Underdal (1998)
have suggested that the importance of science and norms might be limited only
to particular stages of the international policy process, such as initiating negotiations rather than the process of devising workable solutions, and our findings
here support that conclusion. (More on this in Chapter 2.)
Implementation is not just a process which must follow treaty adoption and
accession. It is a process which may impact significantly on the negotiating
process itself. It has been observed in studies of negotiations between nations
in the European context that the tough and detail-minded negotiators are those
who later tend to implement decisions correctly, while those who are most
ready to compromise tend to have poor records of compliance (Weiler, 1988,
355–6). Laxity in implementation allows those nations least supportive of high
levels of protection to sign agreements, knowing that they can drag their feet
on implementation (Eichner, 1997). Many accounts of the development of
MEAs ignore implementation and therefore miss an important dimension, not



just for issues of compliance, but for the implications of a low probability of
compliance with agreement.
At the time of writing, the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the IPCC has
just been released. While it contains a large number of ‘scenarios’, the one
which has been given prominence by IPCC Chairman Robert Watson is one
which shows an alarming rate of global warming: 5.8°C over the next century.
This result, generated from computer models, is the most extreme: it assumes
that sulphate aerosols which cool the atmosphere will be controlled but that
CO2 will not, and economies will continue to be extremely heavily dependent
on fossil fuels, with economic growth rates that seem unrealistic even if desired.
Watson and other IPCC spokesmen have made statements accompanying the
release of TAR to the effect that these predictions make it imperative that nations
implement the Kyoto Protocol reductions: advice we consider quite improper
as ‘scientific’ advice. We suggest on the basis of the analysis which follows
that this was a misguided political attempt to use science to trump interests.
Not only did it lead to an outcome in Bonn in 2001 widely regarded as a failure,
but it runs the risk of being one cry of ‘Wolf!’ too many.

We see the Kyoto process as having been modelled on the stages outlined by
Brenton, but argue that this ignores both the need to negotiate interests and
important stages in the international policy process. Specifically, the model
ignores both implementation and an important distinction between policy
initiation (where science and principled discourses can help initiate action) and
policy adoption (where instrumental discourses are needed). The Kyoto process,
by allowing reliance on normative arguments and science to spill over in to
policy adoption, actually marginalized the instrumental discourses needed to
develop practical policy instruments, resulting in what Hanf and Underdal
(1998) call the vertical disintegration of policy. We shall argue for this in detail
in Chapter 2.
In Chapter 3 we set out the nature of the most significant interests in the
Kyoto process, and then show in Chapter 4 how they were central to the negotiation. Chapter 5 examines the principled discourse employed in the Kyoto
process, arguing that the use of such discourse was made by agents which did
not rise above the interests at stake. We also maintain that the science in the
Kyoto process failed to overwhelm interests, partly because the attempt to create
an institutional consensus was also mixed up with various interests, partly
because – despite these efforts – the science was inconclusive, and partly
because even settled science neither suggests nor demands any particular
response and thus has limited power to produce a policy consensus. We make


International environmental policy

reference throughout to examples of peer-reviewed science which point to
possible sources of error in the IPCC consensus. We explore the development
of the IPCC in Chapter 6, arguing that the body institutionalizes not just a
scientific consensus, but a certain kind of consensus intended to produce a
certain kind of policy response. We provide some examples of this in Chapter 7,
before arguing in Chapter 8 for our conclusion: that reliance on strong normative
and causal discourse in the Kyoto process, rather than helping produce a
consensus in favour of a workable response to climate change, actually contributed to an outcome widely seen as disappointing.

1. Trofim Lysenko rejected the ‘dangerous Western concepts’ of Mendelian and Darwinian
genetics and evolution in favour of somewhat bizarre Lamarckian views that, under a socialist
system, cows could be trained to give more milk and their offspring would then inherit these
traits (see Cole, 1983). Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle had received similarly short shrift in
Soviet science. Claus and Bolander (1977) have noted the key features of Lysenkoism which
can be seen in the politicized science of today: a necessity to demonstrate the practical relevance
of science to the needs of society; the amassing of evidence as substitute for causal proof as the
means of demonstrating the ‘correctness’ of the hypotheses; ideological zeal supplanting
devotion to science, so that dissidents could be silenced as enemies of the truth. Manipulating
data to support the ideological cause was permissible, since this was a higher truth.

Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay